Gray v. Colvin

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 27 Motion for Reconsideration and Hearing. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/16/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-615-BO
TERENCE GRAY,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

ORDER

)
)
)

Defendant.

)

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant
to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE 27]. Defendant did not respond, and
the time for doing so has expired making the matter ripe for ruling. For the reasons discussed
below, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2010, plaintiff applied for supplemental security income ("SSI") based on
disability, under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. After his
application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, a hearing was held before an
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on February 8, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the ALJ issued a
decision denying the claims. The Appeals Council denied Mr. Gray's request for review thereby
rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This Court affirmed the
decision ofthe Commissioner on March 7, 2014. Prose plaintiff now moves for reconsideration
of that order.

DISCUSSION

In order to succeed on a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the
movant must demonstrate that the judgment under reconsideration should be altered or amended.
The Fourth Circuit has identified three circumstances that

justify altering or amending a

judgment: (1) to incorporate an intervening change in the law, (2) to incorporate new evidence
which was unavailable when the court made its decision, and (3) to rectify a clear legal error or
prevent manifest injustice. See Bogart v. Chappell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'! Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff appears to
contend that denying him benefits constitutes a manifest injustice.
The Court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ' s decision that there are
jobs available in the national economy which plaintiff can perform. Plaintiff now argues that
evidence in the record has been overlooked and the Court has been misled as to the extent of
plaintiffs disability. Upon consideration and review of the arguments and administrative record,
the Court does not find that it has reached the wrong decision in affirming the Commissioner.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE 27] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this

16_ day of April, 2014.

~W-

TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2